We see how the current web of licensing agreements is hobbling cable TV operators as they find themselves having to compete more and more with web based streaming services. Isn’t it also possible that similar restrictions regarding health data and metadata might provide similar challenges to creating new and beneficial products and services from shared data?

Once we allow one industry to carve out exemptions and then streamlinine how certain files can be removed from the web, what’s to keep other industries from proposing more categories of information that can be blocked in advance?

It may be that the greatest challenge facing private entrepreneurs in developing new and valuable information products and services based at least partially on public data will be public resistance to paying for information, no matter how new, innovative, or unique these producrts or services are.

One of my favorite media commentators is Jeff Jarvis. I especially enjoy his weekly converaations hosted by Leo Laporte on This Week in Google. Jarvis’ perspective always gets at the big picture of what’s happening with the web economy.

Google’s announcement of its Chromebook is more evidence of the shifting nature of technology-supported computing & communication ecosystems. It signifies more than just a continued “movement to the cloud.”

Before you get too excited about Apple’s recent decision to give up DRM on its iTunes music service, be sure to read Apple Shows Us DRM’s True Colors by Richard Esquerra which appeared January 7, 2008 on Electronic Frontier Foundation’s blog. Esquerra lists all the remaining uses of “DRM” being made by Apple.

If you have recently written a check to pay college tuition for the coming semester, you will be interested to know that, if Congress has its way, part of the money you spend on your child’s college education will now be going to subsidize college-based copyright enforcement and anti-piracy efforts.

Copyright law has abandoned its reason for being: to encourage learning and the creation of new works. Instead, its principal functions now are to preserve existing failed business models, to suppress new business models and technologies, and to obtain, if possible, enormous windfall profits from activity that not only causes no harm, but which is beneficial to copyright owners. Like Humpty-Dumpty, the copyright law we used to know can never be put back together again: multilateral and trade agreements have ensured that, and quite deliberately.

Craig Thomler’s Make government data freely available neatly lays out, from an Australian’s perspective, a discussion of how the public can benefit if government agencies make raw data available for access by individuals and organizations who then analyze or present that data in a useful way. These points are from Thomler’s conclusions:

Given my longstanding interest in copyright, I’ve been following the AP anti-fair-use story with some interest (e.g., see this by Jason Kintzler, or this by Julian Baldwin; there’s also an interesting discussion thread ongoing at the Linkedin Bloggers group on Yahoo! Groups).

When I first heard the term “social DRM” in the context of e-book anti-piracy efforts — the link is to the RSS feed of my del.icio.us bookmarks tagged “socialDRM” — I thought it referred somehow to group peer pressure not to copy files without permission.

When Bob Weber published his post-CES DRM 3.0 Has Arrived he made the point that, while DRM for music may be dying, the entertainment industry’s interest in Digital Rights Management is still quite strong. This got me to wondering whether this “next generation DRM” might have some relevance to current interest in social network portability.

Back in June of this year when I first learned that Lawrence Lessig had shifted gears I expressed some skepticism about the ultimate success of his decision to focus more on the underlying corrupting influences that are endemic to our legal and political processes.

I'm listening to another one of Command Line's podcasts, this time Rant: Is Fair Use a Right? (Command Line produces one of my five favorite podcasts.)
Despite the logical nature of Command Line's thesis (he believes that copyright Fair Use is a "right," not just a legal defense) I'm still skeptical about being able to unambiguously explain to people what their "fair use" rights actually are.

The Computer and Communication Industry Association (CCIA) has published a research report titled Fair Use in the US Economy: Economic Contribution of Industries Relying on Fair Use. This is how Fair Use is described in relation to copyright law:

I've been busy lately. My blogging has suffered. I've tried to update my blog's "daily notes" (located on my home page and archived here) but that's about it. I'm working offline on some longer white papers, I'm starting a new client project next week, I've been involved in a non-stop series of proposals and statements of work, and I've had to keep my plants watered during the drought here on the U.S. East Coast.
Meanwhile, there are some really interesting "tech" things going on.